From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Could this be done simpler? Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:17:09 -0700 Message-ID: <7vljnfykcq.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7veit9m8cs.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <200906260002.40531.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> <200906260023.03169.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> <7vprcsymjd.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christian Couder , Git Mailing List To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jun 26 01:17:21 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MJyC0-0004El-Fv for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:17:20 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756174AbZFYXRJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:17:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756417AbZFYXRI (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:17:08 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao107.cox.net ([68.230.241.39]:58702 "EHLO fed1rmmtao107.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756758AbZFYXRH (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:17:07 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo03.cox.net ([70.169.32.75]) by fed1rmmtao107.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20090625231710.GDCY18948.fed1rmmtao107.cox.net@fed1rmimpo03.cox.net>; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:17:10 -0400 Received: from localhost ([68.225.240.211]) by fed1rmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id 8PH91c00K4aMwMQ04PH9QB; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:17:09 -0400 X-VR-Score: -100.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=YjxVEfEYJ9cA:10 a=Z4Rwk6OoAAAA:8 a=t4fgg1usrRpOzruv3IUA:9 a=vXBPYsphcpmtR5rNI0Ep2cg3X5kA:4 a=jbrJJM5MRmoA:10 X-CM-Score: 0.00 In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Thu\, 25 Jun 2009 15\:50\:19 -0700 \(PDT\)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Linus Torvalds writes: > Sure, I suspect that being really clever about decomposing an octopus > merge might allow us to bisect things _faster_ to one of the branches > involved in the merge, but the amount of smarts to do that just for that > reason seems pretty outlandish. > > And if we ever do end up with an actual bug being bisected to the octopus > merge itself, at that point I don't think it's unreasonable to take the > same approach we do with any normal merge: just try to figure out what the > conflict is all about (clearly it's not a data conflict, since the > octopus wouldn't have succeeded in that case, but subtle merge errors can > be due to two branches each introducing their own assumptions without > actually ever clashing on a source file level). > > With regular merges, if you really don't see what the conceptual conflict > is, you could try to do a temporary rebase to try to figure it out, and I > suspect that that is what you'd want to do with an octopus merge too - > rather than try to decompose the octopus merge into multiple simpler > merges, you'd like to try to linearize history and then re-do the > bisection attempt on that totally modified/simplified history. All true. Thanks for thoughts.